I interpreted it like this: deaths are less expensive than lost productivity.
This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably least productive: the old and the infirm.
This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably least productive: the old and the infirm.
I for one am working towards my old age, I'd hate to be left to just die.
Of course I'm not saying that anyone has done those tradeoffs optimally, especially considering that those relations probably are non-linear in practice.
That word doesn't work when describing people who are no longer part of the reproducing population.
Self perpetuation is fundamentally based only on the implications of the strategy. If keeping elders alive past nominal utility helps spread well then it is effectively favored. Which may or may not be known ahead of time.
That said by being smarter than it we have both the ability and responsibility for the consequences for decisions to follow or defy its nudges as we can and see fit.
And yes, I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.
These calculations have to be made because economic impacts also have a death toll. It all comes back to saving lives in the end.
>I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.
As a side note, you can do this any time, and unrelated to the pandemic. There are charities you can donate to to save lives if you are so inclined.
Because grandparent said they would sacrifice a realistic tax increase to save lives in the COVID-19 outbreak, the parent asked about a confiscatory 99% tax rate and asset seizure, which would be wholly unnecessary for paying for the current crisis.
I don't see how the original comment was unreasonable in asking what is the threshold where economic losses are too high. Halting all economic activity to completely stop the spread of the disease and prevent deaths amounts to a 100% taxation since you are forced to not work and generate revenue. Whether that is acceptable or not isn't my point, but asking the question isn't a fallacy
Caring well is always better than not caring. Unless we won't care in the green scenario either. But then, who think we won't care if we have time and resources?
From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.
At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it.
For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age.
I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population.
This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths